Destroying The California Dream

Californiamap SC Destroying the California Dream

Cuba is a one-party state. North Korea is a one-party state. California is a one-party state.

I’m not trying to draw any false parallels.

But I’ve noticed bad things happen when one political party has complete control of a government for too long, whether it’s the Communist Party that’s wrecked Cuba for 50 years or the Democrat Party that’s wrecked California for 40.

So far, the Democrat monopoly in Sacramento has done nothing to cause Californians who seek greater freedom, lower taxes and a better business climate to begin taking rafts to Oregon or Mexico. But give the Democrats time.

They’ve already bankrupted the state and strangled its economy with high taxes, expensive green-energy policies and “progressive” regulations that scare off businesses, jack up housing prices or inhibit growth.

The other day the California Assembly proved once more that there is no bill too crazy or trivial for it to pass.

By a vote of 47-24, the Assembly passed AB 1960. The bill, almost certain to be approved by the state Senate, would allow owners of businesses that contract with the state to voluntarily identify themselves as gay, lesbian, transgender or bisexual.

The Democrat who sponsored the bill says it’ll let state officials and gay or lesbian groups pin down how much LGBT-owned businesses are helping the state’s economy. Republicans said it digs too far into private lives and is the first step in a quota system that would benefit the LGBT business community, which, the way things are going, probably already accounts for half of the state’s GDP.

Assembly Bill 1960 is likely inconsequential — just another government joke no one thinks is funny. But its passage is also a sign of a larger and very important long-term problem — there are too many Democrats in power in Sacramento and too few Republicans there to stop them.

Forget which party has held the governor’s office. It’s the Assembly and the Senate — Democrat-controlled playpens since my father was governor — that have turned the Golden State into the Great Train Wreck State.

Joel Kotkin probably knows more than anyone about the paradise California once was and the dysfunctional place it has become. Kotkin, one of the country’s top demographers, pointed out the other day that almost 4 million people have left California in the last 20 years. That’s 4 million above and beyond the people who have moved in from other states.

He says most of those fleeing are young, middle-class families seeking lower taxes and affordable living costs. Apparently, the chance to ride a bazillion-dollar bullet train from Los Angeles to San Francisco with their grandchildren is not worth 20 years of pain and suffering.

Kotkin, who calls himself a “Truman Democrat,” says the regime in Sacramento and its “progressive war on the middle-class lifestyle” is responsible for the destruction of the California dream. It’ll only get worse, he says, what with Gov. Brown proposing new taxes this year that are ostensibly aimed at “millionaires” but will hurt small businesses and young families.

I’m no demographer. But as far as I can tell, there’s only one sure way to reverse California’s death spiral — vote the Democrats out of power in Sacramento.

That means Republicans — conservative Republicans allied with sensible Truman Democrats — need to stand up and take back their state from the crazies.

The trouble is, the Republican Party of California is almost as much of a mess as the state. It has no leadership, no heroes, little money, and no clear message. The state GOP has another big problem — Republicans have run out of courage. While the Democrats have been going nuts, Republicans have lost theirs.

Michael Reagan is the son of President Ronald Reagan, a political consultant, and the author of “The New Reagan Revolution” (St. Martin’s Press, 2011). He is the founder and chairman of The Reagan Group and president of The Reagan Legacy Foundation. Visit his website at www.reagan.com, or e-mail comments to Reagan@caglecartoons.com.

Is Obama Dumbing Down The American Dream?

Spirit Of Obama Class Warfare SC Is Obama Dumbing Down the American Dream?

Young Americans received unwelcome news this week when an April 23 AP report found 53.6 percent of college graduates under the age of 25 are jobless or underemployed, and there is little hope for improvement in the near future. This news is grim for young Americans as well as an administration in reelection mode.

President Obama attempted to dull the pain young Americans are feeling when he recently told a group of college students in Florida he “wasn’t born with a silver spoon in his mouth” then went on to blame the mess we’re in on capitalism. He described capitalism as a “broken down theory.”

Obama’s “broken down theory” statement is wrong on many levels, but chiefly because his statement conveniently erases a significant chunk of American history. — that time when Ronald Reagan inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression. It is the “worst” because Reagan and Obama inherited extremely similar recessions, but Reagan’s was coupled with double-digit inflation and a 20 percent prime interest rate. Reagan did a lot of things right, including lowering taxes, and before long, the economy boomed.

In sharp contrast, Obama has executed what many describe as “anti-Reagan” economic policies that have largely failed. His latest tax the rich scheme, the “Buffett Rule,” was defeated by the Democrat-controlled Senate last week. The Wall Street Journal, says it would have added “$793.3 billion to the deficit over the next decade” I reiterate: it would have increased, not decreased, the deficit.

It is as if liberals are caught up in a constant love-hate relationship with the successful, the job creators, and the “rich” — in that they despise their success, but know full well they’d be unable to spread the wealth around without their money.

At this point in time, Obama can’t help himself because he has surrounded himself with people that share the same anti-Capitalism value system. One of those people, Bill Ayers, was recently caught on camera at an Occupy Wall Street rally in New York saying, “I get up every morning and think today I’m going to make a difference, today I’m going to end capitalism.” At least he said it with a smile.

For the unaware, Ayers was involved with a group which bombed the U.S. Capitol and Pentagon during the Vietnam years, and openly admits he’s a “radical, Leftist and small ‘c’ communist.” Ayers has wasted much of his life polluting the minds of naïve college students, similar to what Obama appears to do when he stands before young audiences cherry-picking history and belittling the American Dream.

How disillusioned this group, who flocked to the voting booths en masse for Obama in 2008, must be. Most had no idea Obama’s “hope and change” would mean they’d not have the resources to pay for the federal deficit he’s piled on their backs, as well as the student loan debt they’re drowning in. They never dreamed “change” meant the end of their freedom of choice because Obamacare mandates that all must purchase health insurance, period. Most did not anticipate a lack of ample-paying jobs would force them to live in their parents’ basements post-graduation.

Young Americans deserve better and need to understand that the noise coming from the Left is just that. Statements suggesting that capitalism is “a broken down theory” are meant to dumb down their expectations to encourage them to exchange the hope of silver spoons for plastic forks. Frankly, the Democratic Party’s message of perpetual mediocrity is discouraging to young Americans who have a whole future before them and deserve the opportunity to pursue their version of the American Dream.

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

 

Backward Banking

Obama Democrats Bank Patrol SC Backward Banking

I don’t know if it’s Dodd-Frank. Or if it’s Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd themselves. Or if it’s just the big bankers.

But the reality is, our banking system is completely screwed up when it comes to getting a home loan.

The problem used to be that the banks, in collusion with a federal government, made bad loans to bad people. That’s what helped bring us the housing bubble and the inevitable bust that followed.

Today the problem is reversed. The banking system is so nuts it won’t even allow banks to make good loans to good people. An example of our new backward banking system in action is what’s happened to the daughter of a friend of mine.

She’s a 29-year-old schoolteacher. When she was 24 she went out and bought herself a townhome that a bank had ended up owning after a foreclosure.

The bank was buried in the townhome for $560,000. The schoolteacher got the house for $360,000 and put $110,000 down. Her interest rate five years ago was 6¾ percent.

Today the townhome is worth more than what the teacher paid for it and now she wants to refinance and get a low-interest loan. But she’s just been told by Big Bank that she doesn’t qualify for a 3 or 4 percent loan. They’ve even told her she shouldn’t have been able to qualify for her original loan.

Think about this: Here is a teacher who has never missed a house payment. She has her monthly mortgage payment taken out of her bank account automatically. She’s never missed paying her taxes. She’s never missed paying her homeowner’s dues.

Yet she is treated as though somehow she’d suddenly stop making her mortgage payments if the bank gave her a new loan at 3 or 4 percent. The schoolteacher is looked at by the bank as if she was a future criminal.

I come from a generation where people were allowed to have a personal relationship with their bank. I used to be able to go down and talk to my local banker about a loan.

I’d tell him what I wanted to do and how much money I needed. The banker would say, “Mike, I’ve known you for 30 years. I know you’re good for it.”

Now there’s no such thing as a personal relationship with your banker. The “local” bank is owned by a bunch of international mega-corporations and the management changes every 3 minutes.

Dodd-Frank has created a situation where only the large banks will survive. Small banks are essentially being outlawed. That means our ability to ever have a personal relationship with a banker is also being outlawed. And one bad result of that will be to create more people who become upside-down on their mortgages.

If we want to bring the U.S. economy back to life we have to do it through the housing industry. But there’s no way in hell housing is going to recover if banks are no longer even giving good loans to good and rightful people.

The big bankers and politicians co-produced the meltdown of the economy. They’re the criminals, not the honest schoolteacher looking for a better interest rate on her mortgage.

If we’re going to bring this country back, the Dodds and Franks of Washington are going to have to rewrite the laws so we can have personal relationships with local banks again.

Michael Reagan is the son of President Ronald Reagan, a political consultant, and the author of “The New Reagan Revolution” (St. Martin’s Press, 2011). He is the founder and chairman of The Reagan Group and president of The Reagan Legacy Foundation. Visit his website at www.reagan.com.

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Michael Reagan: “Obama Lying About My Father”

Michael Reagan appeared on Fox News yesterday to address the elevated criticism of his father of Obama. Someone has to debunk these lies; I am glad it is the eldest son of President Reagan who is doing so.

How Watergate Led To The GSA Spending Scandal

Congress How Watergate Led To The GSA Spending Scandal

Who should we tar and feather for the scandalous spending spree at that General Services Administration “conference” in Nevada two years ago?

Whose fault is it that a bunch of GSA bureaucrats wasted money on $44 breakfasts, a clown and a $75,000 bicycle-building exercise?

Not the GSA’s bosses. Not the Obama administration. I pin the blame on Watergate and Congress.

This week Congressional hearings all over Washington have been grilling past and current GSA officials about a $850,000 conference that blew thousands of dollars on things like a mind-reader and “yearbooks” and commemorative coins for the 300 participants.

Everyone from the president to Republican Congressman Darrell Issa of California has expressed outrage at the GSA, which manages the federal government’s property and purchases goods and services for other agencies.

But the source of this scandal isn’t the GSA or its inattentive bosses. They were behaving badly, but they were only doing what they were supposed to — spend every dime Congress gave their agency to spend.

The deeper problem is the way budget money has been allocated and spent by the federal government since the Watergate era. And it’s a problem only Congress can fix.

You’ve probably never heard of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Don’t feel bad. Apparently, neither have the members of the 112th Congress.

The Impoundment Control Act was passed by Congress to punish Richard Nixon for Watergate. It effectively took away the long-standing power of the president to impound federal dollars even though they had been allocated by Congress.

Presidents since Jefferson had used their power to impound money, put it in a fund and spend it in a future fiscal year. Forty-three governors today have the same power to impound money their state legislatures allocate.

For about 170 years the president’s impoundment power was an effective way to keep federal budgets balanced or to prevent Congress from spending money on dumb or unnecessary projects.

Then came Watergate and the Impoundment Control Act. Since then Congress has given itself a blank check to spend money the government didn’t have. Did it matter? Are you kidding?

In 1974, the federal budget deficit was $6.1 billion. One year after the Impoundment Control Act was made law, the deficit was $53 billion. By the time my father Ronald Reagan became president, it was $79 billion.

There’s only one way to prevent future GSA scandals and end our massive budget deficits. Cut back the total amount of money the federal government spends.

Paul Ryan is right. When government agencies have enough money to spend on $850,000 junkets, we’re putting too much money in their checkbooks.

So don’t put the biggest blame on the GSA bureaucrats. Put it on Congress. It’s Congress’ job to slash the budget money the GSA and other bloated, over-funded and unnecessary federal agencies get in the first place.

Instead of holding hearings to see who can express the most outrage at the GSA’s waste, Congress’ spendthrifts should go back and read the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Then they should repeal it.

Michael Reagan is the son of President Ronald Reagan, a political consultant, and the author of “The New Reagan Revolution” (St. Martin’s Press, 2011). He is the founder and chairman of The Reagan Group and president of The Reagan Legacy Foundation. Visit his website at www.reagan.com.

Photo credit: Jessie Owen (Creative Commons)

Congressman: Obama “Welcome To Send As Much Money As He Chooses” To Treasury

Texas Republican Rep. Blake Farenthold said President Barack Obama, who does not qualify for the White House-supported “Buffett rule,” is “welcome to send as much money as he chooses” to the federal government.

“The president is welcome to send in as much money as he chooses to send in — you can overpay your taxes. But really this is about not so much the taxes. Our real problem is not that we’re taxed too little, it’s that we’re spending way too much,” he told The Daily Caller on Capitol Hill Tuesday.

“We’ve got to get the spending under control,” he continued. “You don’t want to send more money up here until we’ve done away with problems like we’ve got at the [Government Services Administration] GSA and that sort of wasteful spending.” (RELATED: Obama: Ronald Reagan a ‘wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior’)

In his 2012 State of the Union address, Obama said, “We need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes. Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes.”

Read more at The Daily Caller. By Nicholas Ballasy.

Reagan Vs. Obama – Social Economics 101

In this animated video excerpt from the movie, “I want your Money,” we learn why socialism doesn’t work from the Ronald Reagan himself. If you miss this video, you are missing a great treat.

Does Ann Romney Wear The Pants In The Family?

With the Hilary Rosen “War on Moms” controversy,” we saw the Left in full panic mode, where everyone from the guy who cleans Obama’s toilet to the Apologizer-in-Chief himself distancing themselves from Rosen before the Earth made a complete rotation. Of course the fact that Rosen visited the White House more times than the entire Administration combined (just a little hyperbole here)—she clocked in a total of thirty-five visits—makes it hard to believe the whole attack of Ann Romney strategy did not originate from the White House.

But that is not my point here.

While I agree with everyone that Rosen’s remarks were in bad taste, I think conservatives need to take a step back for a moment to look at the context of her remarks. And, as strange as it is for a conservative to side with the chief strategist in Obama’s phony “War on Women,” there is some validity to her remarks, albeit not for a phony reason, but based on something substantive.

The basis of Rosen’s remarks were that Romney had stated, “Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that’s what I’m hearing.” Rosen’s point was that because Ann Romney had “never worked a day in her life” (i.e., that she was a stay-at-home mom), her advice was invalid. Of course I completely disagree with Rosen, but I think in her twisted way, there is some validity to not the advice itself, but the needing to get this advice from his wife.

This is difficult to explain, so let me use an analogy, which only those of you who are old timers will get. In 1980 Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan were in the midst of a presidential debate and Carter made the statement that reverberated across the cultural landscape: “I had a discussion with my daughter, Amy, the other day, before I came here, to ask her what the most important issue was. She said the control of nuclear arms.” Carter was mocked ad nauseam for this statement made in reference to his 13-year-old daughter, and it probably contributed to his losing to Reagan in a landslide.

Now the point isn’t whether the advice was substantive or not, but the fact that he needed to go to his daughter for this advice in the first place. Of course we know that Carter really didn’t need to seek his daughter’s input to find out about the important issues of the day. But the point was that it shined a light on Carter’s inherent weakness. And I think Romney’s comment does the same thing.

This past week Romney, along with Gingrich, gave a speech at the NRA convention, but before be began the speech, he trotted out his wife to give a “War on Moms” address to deliver a coup de grâce as the Left abjectly fell on their swords. But as I watched this speech, it struck me that, once Ann Romney took the stage, Mitt Romney’s body language changed completely, from confident to extremely awkward, with his head often hanging down, body slumped, almost cowering. In fact we over at Obama Files made a humorous video based on this one still shot, which shows Ann Romney powerfully posed with this electrifying look on her face, while her husband, head hanging down, slumped over, almost looks like a little boy being scolded by his mother, being placed in the corner.

And I think this brings up a larger point, in exactly why conservatives, specifically the Tea Party, don’t like Romney. Of course we don’t like him because he is a Democrat in everything except name only. He has flip-flopped repeatedly. And, as his thrusting his wife out to capitalize on whatever issue is currently being bandied about shows, he tends to pander to whomever will benefit him.

But I think this is a nebulous criticism of Romney—true, no doubt—but it isn’t really the real reason that the Tea Party dislikes Romney so much. I think the real reason is because of Romney’s weakness. After the Obama Files staff saw the odd still shot of Romney at the NRA, we went through some other videos of Romney standing behind his wife while she spoke, and in almost all cases, Mitt Romney’s body language changed significantly once she stepped up. In using a figure of speech, we would probably say, Ann Romney wears the pants in the family. Or Mitt Romney is tied to Ann Romney’s apron strings.

Now, granted a lot of marriages are like this. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Some women, like Ann Romney, are strong, dynamic figures. Some women capably and successfully run a home and their husbands, and their husbands and children are completely happy with this. Because it works.

But for a President, weakness in the home, I would argue undoubtedly will lead to weakness in the Presidency. And I think this is the underlying complaint—unconscious though it may be—that the Tea Party, both men and women—have with Mitt Romney. Think about how much Obama’s weakness has caused havoc in Afghanistan with the Koran burning apology. Or with coddling a nuclear-armed Iran. Or with the missile launch last week by North Korea. Take Obama’s weakness and double it. That is what a Romney President will look like.

As the last conservative standing, Newt Gingrich should be our nominee, not Mitt Romney.

A New Definition Of Chutzpah Emerges As Obama Uses Reagan As Political Cover

Barack Obama 5 SC A New Definition of Chutzpah Emerges as Obama Uses Reagan as Political Cover

In President Obama’s latest class-war, tax-the-rich gambit, he has stooped to a new low with misleading and out-of-context quotes from Ronald Reagan. Apparently, the president is now trying to use the Gipper for cover while he attacks Mitt Romney with the so-called Buffett Rule.

In an address this past week, Mr. Obama cited a couple of Reagan speeches from June 1985, in which the former president quoted a letter from a wealthy executive who grumbled that he paid less in taxes than secretaries or bus drivers. Obviously, Mr. Obama was trying to draw a parallel with Warren Buffett’s complaint that his tax rate is lower than his secretary’s, and to the resulting Buffett Rule, a proposed 30% minimum tax on millionaires. With a tongue-in-cheek flourish, Mr. Obama referred to Reagan as “that wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior.”

Mr. Obama doesn’t tell you that Reagan had a completely different tax-reform vision.  And reality. Rather than raising the capital-gains tax on successful investors or punishing wealthy people — which are Obama’s priorities — Reagan wanted full-bore pro-growth tax reform that would slash rates for everyone, simplify the tax system with only two brackets, and eliminate tax shelters that allowed people to avoid paying any taxes at all.

Read more at The New York Sun. By Lawrence Kudlow.

Should Newt Gingrich And Ron Paul Stay In Or Get Out?

Newt Gingrich speech 4 SC Should Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul Stay In or Get Out?

Facing mounting pressure from Republican Establishment leaders and Mitt Romney supporters to withdraw from the presidential race, Rick Santorum ended his campaign for the presidency this week. Now, it seems almost inevitable that yet another Republican Establishment favorite, Mitt Romney, will be the Republican nominee for President this year.

In the post-Reagan period of American politics, conservatives repeatedly have failed to nominate one of our own for President and been forced to choose between “the lesser of two evils” in the general election. It looks like 2012 will be another case of “here we go again” as the Republicans rally around (what we used to call in the old days) a “Rockefeller Republican” with no real ties to movement conservatives.

Now that Rick Santorum is out of the race, the calls will mount for Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul to stand down as well and throw their support to Mitt Romney. Let me raise my voice as a longtime conservative, who was part of the “Reagan Revolution”, to encourage Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul to stay the course and continue their presidential campaigns until the Republican convention in Tampa.

One can agree or disagree with these two men on specific issues- and I have policy differences with both. Yet, the fact remains that Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul have engaged in policy-driven campaigns in this election cycle rather than simply rejuvenate the same old buzz words and talking point clichés that certain Republican politicians spout at the behest of their highly paid “hired guns.”

Newt, for example, has been very eloquent in making the case that we ignore the cultural crisis facing America at our peril. I agree strongly with Newt when he points out that, no matter what we do to address the serious economic and foreign policy problems facing our nation, we have to fix the culture, or everything will be for naught. We have gone from a nation founded on a belief in God to one which the secular fundamentalists wants to change in order to completely separate God from the public square. Newt Gingrich is an important voice in challenging the assumptions of the secular left. Unlike Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich is not afraid to take on the “Hollywood Culture” that routinely bashes Christians and the principles of our faith.

In a similar vein, Congressman Ron Paul has been an often lonely voice in warning of the flawed monetary policies of Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke at the Federal Reserve Board which kept interest rates artificially low and fueled the credit excesses which ultimately led to the bursting of the bubble and our economic crisis of 2008. A consistent advocate of the principles of limited government, Ron Paul has not hesitated to criticize Republican administrations when they defend “big government” so long as Republicans are in charge. They call that “big government conservatism.” From my perspective, big government conservatism is little more than a watered down version of the big government liberalism. Ron Paul has not been afraid to say “the emperor has no clothes” even when Republicans are in charge as he did when he vigorously opposed the taxpayer bailout of the “too big to fail” financial institutions engineered by President Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson in 2008. (By the way, Mitt Romney supported the bailout.)

“Ideas Have Consequences” is the title of a book written by a great conservative scholar, Richard Weaver. The last president who appreciated how sound conservative principles can be implemented in order to change the world was Ronald Reagan. Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul understand the importance of the power of ideas to influence public opinion. Barring an extraordinary set of circumstances, neither Newt Gingrich nor Ron Paul is going to be the Republican presidential nominee in 2012. Even so, I believe, it is important that both Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul stay in the race for President as a manner of principle until the Republican National Convention so that they can continue to lay out their respective visions as to how to bring America back to its founding principles.

But if not for Barry Goldwater running for President in 1964, Ronald Reagan never would have been elected President of the United States. By staying in the race for President, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul can lay the groundwork for an authentic conservative to emerge in 2016 who can put back together that Reagan coalition of social and economic conservatives.

Tom Pauken is a former Reagan Administration official and author of BRINGING AMERICA HOME.

Photo Credit: patrickgensel (Creative Commons)